"... I’m saying you are in sin if you lead your congregation to have a statement of faith that requires a particular millennial view."

Mark Dever quoted by Justin Taylor

Discussion

[Bob T.] Mark Dever will not allow anyone who does not believe in limited atonement to speak at his church.
What about the fact that Paige Patterson has spoken there?

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

[Becky Petersen]
When another pastor made some statements of similar hyperbolic strength, there were blog posts all around the country about him. I really don’t want to detract from this thread, but the contrast in way it is being received by various people is interesting.

A quick search of “dever millenial sin” on Google Blogs will indicate that this has caused a much greater stir in the blogosphere than the “other” scenario you refer to, especially amongst the sphere of influence Dever is most influential in.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

The more I think about this difficult situation, the more I am convinced that congregationalism is indeed the problem. Dever says that the sin is “a statement of faith that requires a particular millennial view.” But, he places that in the frame of reference of “a matter of uniformity in order to have Christian unity in a local congregation.” Stemming from a congregationalist/Baptistic view, the statement of faith is binding on all the members. Dever doesn’t think a particular view of the Millennium should exclude Christians from fellowship in a local church.

I conclude that the problem here is the assumption that all members should be equally bound by the statement of faith. In Reformed denominations (particularly the English-influenced), only the elders must strictly adhere to the Confession. Since all people are in different states of progressive sanctification, a church cannot expect all its members to consciously hold all the same beliefs. This practice is always applied inconsistently. A new believer, for instance, is unable to really critically examine the entire statement of faith and come to an educated, firm conviction regarding it. They will just shrug their shoulders and accept whatever they are told. A 6 year old is likely unable to understand certain parts of the statement of faith, but that does not prevent him from being baptized in most Baptist/congregationalist churches.

So I think my answer to Dever would be to suggest different levels of membership. If a church believes strongly in a certain Millennial view, I see no reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to put it in their statement of faith, as long as the statement of faith is only strictly applied to the elders, and membership in the congregation is open to all who have a credible profession of faith and are willing to live peaceably under the government of the church.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

My thoughts are along the lines of Charlie’s. I don’t necessarily have a problem with a church wanting to put a Millennial position in its doctrinal statement, but I do not think it should be a requirement for membership (or else I would have to leave my own church!)
To me, it seems that a church’s doctrinal statement should be a summary of what will be taught from the pulpit so that people know what to expect. So, if you will teach Premillennialism, put it in your statement, but don’t require anyone other than the pastors to agree to it.

I will relate my story. In the late ’90s I began studying Reformed Theology and began to notice things about our Independent Fundamental Baptist church that began to bother me. It began to dawn on me how man centered our services were. Sermons were about the importance of “doing” in the church or “not doing” in our personal lives. Our pastor, If he said it one time he said it a hundred times, “I am on my way to heaven because I put my trust in Jesus Christ.” I knew what he meant but it bothered me that I was not hearing what Christ had done, it was about what he had done.

In the first quarter of 2000 the adult Sunday School Class began a series on Revelations. In the second or third week of the series, our pastor related a story of how a couple was visiting our church. After several weeks of visiting, they stopped to visit with him on the way out of church and the husband made the comment that they were thinking of applying to join the church but that he wanted the pastor to know that he was a-millennial. Our pastor then made this statement, “If you are a-millennial, you will not want to worship with us so you might as well not join our church”. The very next Sunday, my wife and I began looking for a new church. We joined a PCA church 45 minutes from where we live and are thankful we made the move. Our new senior pastor at the time was a-millennial. The associate pastor was historic Pre-mil. I have never seen a group of people who love each other more but who love the Lord more than all else. After several weeks of visiting and prior to joining, my wife made a statement on the way home from church that completely floored me. She had difficulties with my studying of Reformed Theology and she was having difficulty coming to grips with the Doctrines of Grace. That week on the 30 mile trip home after church, she said, “Thank you for finding this church where for the first time since we have lived here, we are in a church with God-centered worship”. We are still making the 30 mile trek one way and do not plan to leave this church until God moves us.

[Bob T.] However, this is to be expected from a Hyper Calvinist Dortist.
Interestingly, Dever’s book on personal evangelism is the best book I’ve read on the subject.

Especially interesting coming from the pen of a “Hyper Calvinist Dortist”.

Bob, that is an illegitimate and uncalled for label. Its is also unfounded and disparaging. I’m a bit surprised the moderators have allowed it to remain.

Ken Fields

[Charlie] So I think my answer to Dever would be to suggest different levels of membership.
Would this be like the Masionic Lodge?

I am 33 1/3 degree Baptist.

[Pastor Harold]
[Charlie] So I think my answer to Dever would be to suggest different levels of membership.
Would this be like the Masionic Lodge?

I am 33 1/3 degree Baptist.
Funny. You must be quite immersed in your club by that point.

I meant to say that there should be a distinction between the level of subscription required for membership and that required for eldership.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

[Jack]
[Alex Guggenheim] Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t Dever also recently responsible for advancing the grossly erring view that it is not just acceptable but possibly desirable for the church to receive earmarked support from government?
Alex, I’ve been a member of CHBC for more than five years and have never heard anything approaching this view. In fact, given our elders’ written position on the church’s social responsibility, I’d be very surprised if this is an accurate representation of Mark’s view.
Jack,

Thanks for the response and now I am tasked with attempting to find the source of what I believe is a memory of an article or statement. If I do recall, it was on the old Sharper Iron, maybe archived, let me look, possibly under filings and while I look…DOES ANYONE ELSE recall the article or thread?

[Alex Guggenheim] Thanks for the response and now I am tasked with attempting to find the source of what I believe is a memory of an article or statement. If I do recall, it was on the old Sharper Iron, maybe archived, let me look, possibly under filings and while I look…DOES ANYONE ELSE recall the article or thread?

This may be what you have in mind, though I don’t believe you are correctly interpreting what he said:

http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=9722

http://blog.9marks.org/2009/04/index.html
We, as a congregation, are not required to take responsibility for the physical needs in the unbelieving community around us. We do have a responsibility to care for the needs of those within our congregation (Matt. 25:34-40; Acts 6:1-6; Gal. 6:2,10; James 2:15-16; I John 3:17-19) though even within the church, there were further qualifications (e.g., II Thess. 3:10; I Tim. 5:3-16). Paul’s counsel to Timothy (in I Tim. 5:3-16) about which widows to care for seems to indicate that the list was intended for Christian widows. One qualification seemed to be lack of alternative sources of support. Thus the instruction that family members should care for the needy first, if at all possible, shows the kind of prioritization of allowing for families—even of unbelievers—to provide support so that the church wouldn’t have to do it (I Tim. 5:16). We can extrapolate from this to conclude that support that could be provided from outside the church (for instance, from the state) should be preferred over using church funds, thus freeing church funds to be used elsewhere.
I understand him to mean that caring for the needy should be done by means outside the church should be the first order of preference- that is, that people in need have those needs met by the other source (state, family, etc) before they go to the church for assistance. I do NOT understand him to be saying that the government should give to the church so that the church might give to the needy.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Greg,

Thanks for the link and I believe the quote you posted is that to which I was referring which leads me to my second thanks, namely a clarification of the statement I read in a cursory manner which now offers me the reminder of the virtues of more careful reading, hence my view of the statement is now modified.

However, this is to be expected from a Hyper Calvinist Dortist.
Dever is not a hyper-Calvinist. Find his series of talks on evangelism at the 2008 Bethlehem Pastor’s Conference. I was listening to them again this morning. It will dispel this false notion presented by Bob T.